AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste  (Read 6383 times)

jnewkirk77

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 296
  • Location: Owensboro, KY
  • Last Login: January 23, 2022, 07:51:29 PM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2020, 07:52:44 PM »

For the money, you should replace the Brent Spence Bridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge

What's being proposed is not a replacement, but an additional bridge, similar to what was done in Louisville. A new bridge would be built and temporarily carry all traffic while the existing bridge is rehabbed. The Brent Spence would carry I-71, the new bridge would carry I-75, and the split/merge would take place on the Kentucky side of the river.

I did read through the options they are looking at.

Brent Spence is already functionally obsolete (when they removed the shoulders) and while it appears they would put them back in as part of a new bridge deal, that would make it functionally current, but my issue is that the bridge has been "overused" for many years. It's current AADT way exceeds its design specification. Bridges have lives, this one has been consuming its life in an accelerated fashion. Yes, reducing the AADT will cut the overall sprung weight, but how much life would you get back in doing so and is it worth it?

That's a good point, but they'd likely rehab it to the extent needed, as was done with the Kennedy bridge after the Lincoln bridge was finished.
Logged

edwaleni

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1408
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 10:46:35 PM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2020, 01:23:32 AM »

For the money, you should replace the Brent Spence Bridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spence_Bridge

What's being proposed is not a replacement, but an additional bridge, similar to what was done in Louisville. A new bridge would be built and temporarily carry all traffic while the existing bridge is rehabbed. The Brent Spence would carry I-71, the new bridge would carry I-75, and the split/merge would take place on the Kentucky side of the river.

I did read through the options they are looking at.

Brent Spence is already functionally obsolete (when they removed the shoulders) and while it appears they would put them back in as part of a new bridge deal, that would make it functionally current, but my issue is that the bridge has been "overused" for many years. It's current AADT way exceeds its design specification. Bridges have lives, this one has been consuming its life in an accelerated fashion. Yes, reducing the AADT will cut the overall sprung weight, but how much life would you get back in doing so and is it worth it?

That's a good point, but they'd likely rehab it to the extent needed, as was done with the Kennedy bridge after the Lincoln bridge was finished.

To get more life out of the MacArthur Bridge in St Louis they (TRRA) had to remove tons of steel beams, plating and concrete decking that supported the upper deck for US-66. They calculated that the raw reduction of sprung weight bought the bridge another 70-80 years of service life.

Other cantilever bridges built in the early 1950's have been replacing the steel grid or concrete decking with the new resin based decking that is just as strong but weighs much less. Depending on how much they replace, they say it can buy a bridge another 25-30 years just by removing sprung weight.
Logged

theline

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1082
  • Age: 71
  • Location: South Bend, IN
  • Last Login: June 13, 2021, 11:28:12 PM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2020, 11:15:50 PM »

I read once that I-275 was extended to the west just because they wanted to include Indiana.

My brother, who was a Cincinnati resident when 275 was built, once told me that Lawrenceburg residents insisted that 275 be rerouted to provide a river crossing for their town. He thought it was a waste since it rendered the western loop of 275 impractical as a Cincinnati bypass.
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6376
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 10:16:08 PM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2020, 05:07:14 AM »

Would anyone traveling through Cincinnati on I-75 really take such a long, out-of-the-way, bypass?
As someone who has traveled through Cincinnati a lot. I-75 is usually fine until you get near the Ohio River. I-275 is already there and an out of the way bypass as it is. So I  would have to say no they would stay on I-75.

The worst stretch is of course the Brent Spence Bridge.  I hate that bridge.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3231
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 11:01:23 PM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2020, 03:58:40 PM »

This bypass proposal reminds me of the 225-mile Interstate 875 outer beltway once mentioned on Kurumi's 3di page: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i875.html.
Logged

Flint1979

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6376
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Michigan
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 10:16:08 PM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2020, 06:02:08 PM »

This bypass proposal reminds me of the 225-mile Interstate 875 outer beltway once mentioned on Kurumi's 3di page: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i875.html.
That's utterly ridiculous was it supposed to bypass Dayton too?
Logged

thefro

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 383
  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: January 14, 2022, 01:27:35 PM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2020, 05:00:32 PM »

I read once that I-275 was extended to the west just because they wanted to include Indiana.

My brother, who was a Cincinnati resident when 275 was built, once told me that Lawrenceburg residents insisted that 275 be rerouted to provide a river crossing for their town. He thought it was a waste since it rendered the western loop of 275 impractical as a Cincinnati bypass.

It'd still have to go pretty far out and cross around North Bend, Ohio.

That area along the river's always been pretty well-developed past there between the old B&O railroad running by and US 50.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3231
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 11:01:23 PM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2020, 05:03:02 PM »

I have no idea exactly what route it would have taken, other than this from the 875 page on kurumi.com: A proposed $1.6 billion, 225-mile outer beltway around Cincinnati, concentric with I-275. The proposed route: "would pass through Brown County, Ohio, crossing into Kentucky via the new Maysville-Aberdeen bridge, along Kentucky 9 near Brooksville, then intersecting the cities of Falmouth in Pendleton County, Williamstown in Grant County, Owenton in Owen County, through Carroll County and into Gallatin County. The road would connect with the Markland Dam near Warsaw before crossing into Indiana."

There has not been much buzz about this route since 1997, however.

The Ghostbuster: I doubt it was ever a serious proposal, probably someone's attempt at Fictional Highways.
Logged

bandit957

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2579
  • A natural gas bunk!

  • Age: 48
  • Location: Bellevue, KY
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 08:46:26 PM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2020, 06:07:06 PM »

I have no idea exactly what route it would have taken, other than this from the 875 page on kurumi.com: A proposed $1.6 billion, 225-mile outer beltway around Cincinnati, concentric with I-275. The proposed route: "would pass through Brown County, Ohio, crossing into Kentucky via the new Maysville-Aberdeen bridge, along Kentucky 9 near Brooksville, then intersecting the cities of Falmouth in Pendleton County, Williamstown in Grant County, Owenton in Owen County, through Carroll County and into Gallatin County. The road would connect with the Markland Dam near Warsaw before crossing into Indiana."

There has not been much buzz about this route since 1997, however.

The Ghostbuster: I doubt it was ever a serious proposal, probably someone's attempt at Fictional Highways.

I remember articles in the Kentucky Post back then that seemed to be cheering this proposal. It was a serious proposal for a while.
Logged
Pooing is cool

X99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 792
  • Location: South Dakota
  • Last Login: January 23, 2022, 01:19:44 AM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2020, 07:51:12 PM »

I would think a new freeway from the southern I-71/75 split near Walton and connecting to I-275 near Cold Spring would be very useful and heavily used.

I could even see I-71 being rerouted along this new route and then following I-471, removing the I-71/75 concurrency entirely. Now there's a thought!

They were talking about doing this years ago, but it just wasn't doable, since much of the area was too built up.
What about running I-71 on I-275 and I-471, and moving the I-471 designation to the section between the current 71/471 interchange and I-75? It wouldn't be a new route, but it would be like rerouting MO 76 onto MO 465- recommending the larger-capacity alternative.
Logged
why are there only like 5 people on this forum from south dakota

bandit957

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2579
  • A natural gas bunk!

  • Age: 48
  • Location: Bellevue, KY
  • Last Login: January 25, 2022, 08:46:26 PM
Re: Ohio says new Cincinnati bypass is a big waste
« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2020, 07:52:55 PM »

What about running I-71 on I-275 and I-471, and moving the I-471 designation to the section between the current 71/471 interchange and I-75?

They might as well, because the signs inexplicably tell airport traffic to use that route anyway.
Logged
Pooing is cool

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.